WHY THE NEED FOR WOMEN'S DAY

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY is upon us again. Every year March 8th comes round without fail and the chatter is almost deafening. Everyone pays lip service. The media is relentless in its features on women, usually the great. As a result its the same faces all the time. Why? Because truth be told so few women get anywhere, anyway.

Its true the world over. Women join the workforce. Each year the number mounts. Some men shout out loud that the women are stealing their jobs. Wish it were true, but its not. The economy expands, there are more jobs. Men move into better paying jobs and the vacuum they leave -- normally in slave-pay jobs -- are taken over by the women. For example, the army of clerks that keeps offices humming. When I was a child most clerks were men. Today the men go into better paying "skilled jobs" in factories and assembly plants of foreign companies. They take on technical and engineering occupations of pushing buttons and oiling machines and because the men do it it becomes a "skill". Women put away files, do the company ledgers, input letters into computers, yet they are considered general clerks and almost unskilled, which in turn makes for bad wages.

Women do the menial tasks shunned by men whose machismo will not permit them to be tea-persons and office cleaners. So, this being a men's world, machismo makes money. Although, it must be noted that the same does not necessarily apply to migrant labour. Now, they form a genderless underclass , which keeps the host working class a rung above and, therefore, relatively content.

Most men treat women as nothing but a bit of skirt. In many developing societies, CEDAW notwithstanding, patriarchy remains a stubborn legacy. Some Muslims sincerely believe that a woman's road to paradise is martyrdom, one achieved by submission to the will of the man of the family. Guardianship of women and children is the preserve of the male members of the family, in order of seniority. Fathers are always first in line, then the eldest son and so on. Unfortunately, the male mindset view this as a power structure and not a responsibility, therefore, a safety-net. The guardian tends to be oppressive and not, surely as God would want it, protective and caring. When a man fails in his duty as protector, he should lose the right to guardianship automatically, but no, he takes this right with him even when he abandons his family. Yes, even in this new millennium.

The realities of contemporary society has made gender irrelevant in this respect. Women too are economically capable of being protectors, guardians and custodians. And, that they are "naturally" viewed as caregivers should make them ideal guardians. However, because it does not suit the men it does not happen for Muslims. To further complicate the situation there are some Muslims who actually believe that wives may not leave the home without the husband's permission, which in turn means they cannot work without his consent.

This does not mean though, that non-Muslim women are having a whale of a time. As humanity plods on regardless, women who have decided to seize the day come what may actually find themselves lumbered with more than their fair share. Work is a socialising experience that has no substitute. Housework, on the other hand, is just too mind numbing especially when unpaid. Homemakers feel themselves to be in a state of dependency that robs them of all dignity. So going out to work is more than merely augmenting the household income. It gives these women a feeling of self-worth, it builds their self-esteem. Once home, unfortunately, even after a hard day's work there is the household chores to do. The lucky ones may have domestic help. But still, the wives are the ones who supervise the help and not good old hubby the "main" bread winner. And the help. She's a woman!

So there you have it. Women, whichever way you look at it do not have a field day hence, WOMEN'S DAY, a reminder that half of humanity is being let down by the other half and that this needs addressing. But the media cacophony, because it is unstructured, comes out as a day in praise of successful women. Nobody notices that it is the same old faces, year in, year out. More needs to be done so that one half of the decision-makers are women. And then, the successful woman will be as unnewsworthy as the successful man and Women's Day will be irrelevant.

BOOK REVIEW: THIS IS HOW WE DO IT

AUTHOR: CAROL EVANS

I close the cover of this book feeling rather short-changed. Not because the book was badly written, far from it. Neither was it misleading, in fact the reverse is true. It is a treasure trove of very useful information. Is it uninteresting? I read it cover-to-cover without really having to force myself. This book is liberally dotted with beautiful anecdotes of a caring, loving, working mother who has made a success of her parenting role and her career, the two though distinctly separate is sometimes woven together in a “work-life fusion” to make for a happier working mother.

Nevertheless, as a woman and a working mother myself for most of my working years I thought that Ms Evans was a little too uncritical of her society-given lot. But before perceptions are dragged in let’s give objectivity a chance.

This book is written by a woman whose success as a marketer must come from her obvious diplomatic skills, which while empathetic is well anchored in a reality that is patiently brought round to her way of thinking. Nothing in this book can be construed as aggressively feminist. The author is not, mind you, anti-feminist. It is obvious that she believes in women’s rights and more. For, she appears to view the family unit vis-à-vis the needs of its children as almost a holy grail, even when a career woman is a single parent.

Now, why I say this is not a book for the diehard feminist is because the working mother’s double burden is not an issue, rather is a given and the book’s purpose is to help working mothers cope with the double burden so that she is not only a good mother, but maybe, more importantly, that the ‘good mother’ bit does not get in the way of her being a good employee. This is not to say that Ms Evans puts the family obligations last. Most definitely NOT!

Family obligations are it that prompted the book, mainly the result of a 2005 survey conducted by the magazine she owns and runs called “Working Mother”. The What Moms Want survey asked more than 500 working women across the USA “who cares for their kids, how much do they spend on childcare, how does having children affect their ambitions and careers?” The aim was to understand the gaps that most needed filling when it comes to the kinds of community and workplace support that working mothers need and to set the benchmark for the next 25 years of progress.

Here is a book that places the working mother on a pedestal of sorts; the wonder woman who has spun round one too many times and realize that more than super power is needed to balance the double burden.

What it tries to do is tell the reader that a mother working is, in this day and age, essential towards ensuring that the children can have most, if not all, the advantages that life has to offer: better education; nice homes; and, horizon-broadening holidays. Yet, parental and filial duties sometimes demands that mothers be away from work like when the children are unwell, or even aging parents needing care. These are the kinds of obligations that have made mothers unemployable.

On the one hand the message is, of course, targeted at women as the book itself admits: “…for all of us doing it, but want to do better. It is also for those millions of women who haven’t yet added “mother” to their resumes.” On the other, the intention is, without a doubt, to reach employers through these mothers who want to give their best to the family, company and society while at the same time living full lives. Hence the information on how and what to do to get as much support as is feasible from employers, ever mindful that most companies are still operating under Neanderthal assumptions of the male hunter-gatherer.

The thrust of the book is accommodation – push the envelope ever so gently and allow for a gradual social evolution. What it does not want to do is create the notorious sexual revolution that the 19th century blue stockinged feminists hankered after, which the 20th century feminists hoped to achieve by burning their bras as a symbol of open defiance. Now, in the 21st century and the new millennium with necessity dictating the ever-growing numbers of female workers at every level of employment and everywhere, the strategy is to make employers see that happy mothers make for excellent workers and in turn hefty profits. And, the only way to achieve this is to take cognizance of a working mother’s double burden and to lighten it substantially. So its, don’t rock the boat baby, gently does it.

To be fair the author does not ignore the need for activism. Write to your representatives when the need arises and do not wait for others to do it for you, she urges her readers. Despite this I cannot get rid of the feeling that the book is too kind of ‘feel good’ and does not properly capture the reality that can be very harsh for many working mothers, maybe not in the USA but most definitely elsewhere, especially in the developing world.

Seriously, can Malaysian women envisage a policy now of good daycare for the very young and good after-school care for the still-too-young-to-be-latchkey-children? There where Hilary Clinton is looking good to becoming the first woman US president we may safely give the push a feminine touch and get somewhere. Here, there is still much debate on whether Islam allows for a woman premier! That Muslim women can go out to work only with the express permission of their husband is a very close second. Two basic women’s rights issues generally plaguing Muslim women in far too many Muslim societies.

THIS IS HOW WE DO IT is a reference book with a pleasant difference. For us here it is a look-in on working mothers who are firmly on the path of gender enlightenment, but one with a distinctly sentimental twist: a future of happy families where both Mr and Mrs Baker wears pants and Master and Miss Baker are well-adjusted children rich in character moulding experiences well before they even get to university. After all, isn’t the university life’s starting line, where the scramble for survival begins?

PUBLISHER: HUDSON STREET PRESS

OH YOU FOXY, SEXY OLD LADY

ITS COMMONPLACE IN HOLLYWOOD TODAY. Many of the top names have given their heart to a much younger man. There is Demmi Moore. Cher and Elizabeth Taylor both did it. Several others whose name escapes me for the moment have all done it or are doing it: women who married or are partnering with men much younger than themselves.

Not as commonplace, probably, but still a fact of history nonetheless and well-known for having done the same 1400 and more years ago and at her will was the Prophet Mohamad's first wife Khadijah. She was 15 years his senior. He was 25 and she 40 when they married. She gave him his much loved daughters and he stayed, by all accounts, happily monogamous while she was alive. She it was who fell in love with him then under her employ. She it was who took the initiative and asked to marry him. Now, that is liberated! She was a widow of independent means and he was this attractive and very reliable young man who led her caravan.

However, for the most part there seems to be a general lack of acceptance by society for a young man wanting to marry a much older woman. The man's parents, for one, are more often than not opposed to what they perceive to be a foolhardy decision. A young man should marry a young woman, so goes the going wisdom. An old woman, if she cannot find an old man to marry or to partner up with, should not have a man at all. If she has children, what more grandchildren, then she is duty bound to do the right thing and not embarrass the family. The upbeat granny with a lust for life, who will not allow age to overtake her has not yet generally arrived in the average psyche.

The point is the greater the age gap the louder the no-no. A slightly older wife has never caused a real stir. But when a woman is a whole 12-year cycle of the Chinese horoscope, say, older than her husband then it is the man that suffers, not the woman. Such a man is often viewed as inadequate, unable to reel in a woman of his peer group or younger. Or, he is seen as a wimp looking for a mother figure. In short, a much older wife disfigures a man's machismo. Which, in turn means, that the man who will look the world in the eye and take a much older woman to his heart is one of great strength, not at all the wimp.

Unfortunately, as with almost all instances of such an uneven match age-wise, the older spouse is the more successful. This is generally true for both women and men. But is it a bad thing? An older person would have had a huge head start in life anyway, which gives them a natural advantage in terms of wealth and status. When a young woman opts for an old man it is not viewed as offensive except maybe to those who perceive of them as gold diggers convinced that a young lady cannot possibly fall in love with an old person. For a man though, the condemnation is near unanimous. For the most part it is seen as almost an obscenity by some quarters. Why? He is probably wanting to get more in her purse than her pants -- which is about right when marriage takes place between the old and the young irrespective of gender. She, yes she, will grow old, ugly and repugnant only too quickly.

The problem is that society views the aging woman as unattractive. A woman just grows old. A man, on the other hand, becomes more distinguished with age his grey hair giving a sense of wisdom. Grey hair on women is seen as plain aging. Lines on a man's face give him character. Lines on a woman turn her into a prune. Most unfortunate of all is that men in general think they can all lay claim to this advantage. Even more unfortunate is that when mature women do look distinguished and packed with character, they remain unattractive because they are, more often than not, perceived as no longer sexy.

Women when they get past a certain age is no longer viewed as essentially woman. No longer Aphrodite, because her womb has shriveled and her fallopian tubes have dried up, she loses a fundamental social purpose. She is given to believe that she is now sexless and surrenders her will to this fate, for fighting it would be scandalous. It cannot be denied, however, that healthy humans, of both the female and male varieties, go on having sexual urges. This then is a clear demonstration that sex and fertility are not synonymous. So why is it that women stop looking sexy when they go on feeling sexy?

The question then is whether being sexy is a state of the mind or is it physiological? For the most part it is because women have allowed their physique to collapse for want of a reason to go on looking sexy. Not that they cannot find reason but rather it is the consequence of the reason that they fear. The tut-tutting, the finger-pointing and the ridicule, that is what robs women of reasons for always wanting to look good and feel sexy at any age. Hollywood with its huge influence on popular culture might yet be the saviour. For, would not the world benefit when there is nothing to stop us from living our lives fully?

TO THE GOLDEN GIRLS

JUST A SHORT SURVEY. To participate please click on the comment button, answer YES or NO and please add whatever comments you think fit.

The Target Market:
The "golden girls". Women of 50 and above, or younger should you think this applies to you.

The SURVEY:

Objective of the survey is to understand whether there is a need for a community of "golden girls" to share ideas, knowledge, activities and, most importantly, to share concerns. The aim is to understand whether there is need for self-help groups within the community to enable older women to feel fully engaged in society.

WHY? As our body goes through the changes brought on by menopause, things happen to us that are out of the usual. The physical symptoms alone can be devastating to some. Without a proper understanding of what we are going through, older women tend to be sidelined or even shunned by family and friends. The uneven temper and uncalled for cantankerousness can cause them to become a "pariah", a necessary consequence of which is loneliness. On the individual level, such women can end up utterly confused because she is not in control of her emotions. Under these circumstances belonging to a sharing-community would be a huge boon.

While the physique can be medicated, the loss of vitality for life is even more difficult. Older women are often without a real reason to live. Their working life over, meaning is found in their children and grandchildren. For the average "golden girl", being a vital part of the family means to fill a need. This more often than not means babysitting and isolation. However, for such women, belonging to a community/group of her peers would be generally more beneficial as it provides greater mental stimulation and she remains a vital part of society.

A community-based group can maintain her participation in the public space. For those who have always been home-makers and never had much experience of socialising outside of the family because of family commitments the "golden years" could indeed be the start of another phase of enjoying the world and engaging in it in ways that can build self-esteem thus bringing about a new sense of self-fulfillment. Having friends to turn to outside of the confines of family and immediate neighbours would help her avoid the "empty nest syndrome" and the feeling of abandonment by ungrateful children. Keeping an older woman happy will keep her healthy longer. Keeping her occupied and focused on herself makes for a happy family.

A toast: TO THE GOLDEN GIRLS!!!

Thank you for taking time to participate in this survey.

HANDBAGS AND SHOES DO NOT A FEMINIST UNMAKE

LADIES, YOUR OPINION PLEASE. I love handbags and shoes. I like looking good cos it makes me feel just wonderful. I hate me when I'm lazy and unkempt. Is this wrong? You may say that for as long as all this is for me then its "go ahead girl, just do your thing!"

No, I more often than not feel good because I think that someone looking may think I look good. Without the other approving of what I am then, in all probability, I'm happy being a cavewoman. Grow fat, eat what I like, die when I should. That kind of thing. I have yet to learn to love me for me. Am I a victim of conditioning or am I a victim of creation?

How can I say this? Is there any chance that somewhere out there there's someone who has no inclination to be sexually loved and to sexually love? There is here no reference to sexual preference. Your poison is yours, feel free to help yourself. Mine is mine. In this instance my sexual leaning makes no difference because it is all about me, my self, this one person that should make my world go round. Whom I love matters only in how much this other person actually makes or breaks me: that is all that is pertinent for the issue at hand.

Therefore, we are made this way, desperate for love. If you disagree its only because you have not loved and be loved in return although I must admit that lust is easily mistaken for love. And, of course, too, those claims by some that there are good substitutes for love, the kind that do not cause hassles, and are clean and uncomplicated. Well, yes. Enough times I have thought that achievement can take the place of love. The adrenalin rush alone is worth paying for, if its up for sale. If that adrenalin rush can be packaged it would make someone awfully rich. But when once you love again you will realise how faulty that sense is. It is no substitute for love.

Love makes me sing, it makes me want to dance, it makes me fly. Love gives me a high, unblemished and always pristine. Try it if you don't believe me. Let yourself go and find love and then you will know what I mean. When stage two knocks in you fall lightly to the ground. You are better grounded, no doubt, but the elation is still much part and parcel of your being in love. But remember, I am talking from a woman's perspective. A man probably feels differently when he is in love. Let me just take a guess and if I'm wrong, I hope my male readers will let me know.

"I am god," says a man in love. There is gentleness because there cannot not be for love is gentle. When no gentleness is present in a relationship love doesn't live there. So, the man in love is gentle but not soft; kind and not stupid; and, strong in a very comforting way. All men in love are this way made, nothing makes a difference: not age, not race, not creed and not class. Love is a leveler and there is only one way to be in love. Anything less and one knows that therein is lust, pure and simple. Why do I say this? Well those attributes I listed comes natural with love. When parents love it is that way, unconditional, as you give of yourself with no strings attached.

And so I hanker to remain forever high. Towards this end I keep myself trim, try to stay healthy so that the complexion is always radiant, make sure I have my beauty sleep and, naturally after all that, dress attractively. Now this is where the bag and shoe fetish comes in. It is a pleasant distraction when its in check. But, do I not make a good feminist because of it?

Point is here that I want someone to love, always. That, I know, nobody begrudges me. For without it I am a sorry excuse for whatever. It makes me cry. And please do not mistake what I say for the silly notion that one cannot be without a partner. That is not true. Better without a partner than be with one and not have love. What I want is to have my cake and eat it; this, they say, no one can have. That, I contend, is a fallacy. And so the dress up and good-looking, good-feeling me.

However, there is that school which vehemently argues for the "take me as I am" principle. Fat, thin, dark, fair, bucktooth or not, beautiful or hideous, this is what I am. You don't like it, go lump it. True love, this school of thought wants us to believe, will see past all the flaws and go straight for the essence. Were the world made this way, "hallelujah," I'd say. You know that its not, hence, cosmetic surgery. The good lookers have a better chance at love than plain Janes. That is the fact. Granted that was not how it was for Princess Diana, but she bucked the odds. Furthermore, hers was an arranged marriage not a fairytale one. That latter was mere media hype.

I love bags and shoes, and lovely clothes. I enjoy being attractive. And, I love love. More importantly, I love my fellow persons. I am angry at the oppressor. I cry for the oppressed. I write in praise of fair play and social justice. I fight for equality. I give to the needy of myself and my property, inasmuch as I am able. I am ALL of these. Why then fault me for my innocent distractions. I AM A FEMINIST!! So there.